Oakland County dangerous dog ordinances vary from town to town

A small terrier dog was out on a walk with its owner in Royal Oak last December when two pit bulls attacked the small dog and killed it.

A city police officer arrived and shot and killed the dogs. Police ticketed the pit bulls’ owner, but the negative headlines generated didn’t sit well with some Royal Oak commissioners who asked that authorities take a second look at the existing dog ordinance.

In Waterford Township, officials are currently researching what to do about the township’s 23-year-old pit bull ban after one resident was upset that her dog was labeled a pit bull and she spent $170 proving it wasn’t. Advocates of bully-type dogs packed a Feb. 11 board meeting, urging officials to revise the ban.

Regulations on controlling dogs evoke passionate responses and, as with dogs themselves, come in all shapes and sizes.

If a dog is determined to have problems, it will be registered as a potentially dangerous or a dangerous dog, said Nebus.

“It has to be maintained inside a proper enclosure, and the owner has to post a clearly visible sign warning people about the animal,” said Nebus.

“Then the animal has complete obedience training through a certified program.” The animal, dogs in all cases thus far in Farmington Hills, that has met all requirements can be removed from the city’s registered list.

“It’s effective,” said Nebus. “It send out the message that we are serious in the community about dogs biting people and other dogs.

“It also provides a mechanism so there is formal structure to keep track of these dogs.”

At the board reviews, witnesses and victims in the dog attack attend.

“They feel the support from the city and police department,” said Nebus.

“It gives them an opportunity in an informal setting to talk with officials and that something’s being done. Many times it’s common that the dog owner will apologize and usually pay for medical bills.”

Nebus likes the informal setting because courts have enough cases, he said.

The city has only dealt with one dangerous dog case, said Nebus, and he recalled the owner did not keep the dog.

— Pit bulls running in Rochester Hills were responsible for killing an 8-month-old Pekinese puppy named Lacey in 2010. Then that August another two pit bulls killed a puppy on a walk with its owner.

Rochester Hills city council members did consider a ban on pit bulls but concluded they wanted tougher laws. In 2011, they passed an ordinance that requires dangerous dog owners must carry a minimum level of liability insurance.

Under Ordinance No. 561, which took effect April 1, 2011, a person deemed to be the owner of a “dangerous dog” must register the animal. One of the requirements to obtain a registration certificate is proof the owner has at least $250,000 in liability insurance coverage that covers animal bites.

“It was a very challenging (time),” said Mayor Bryan Barnett. “There were passionate feelings on both sides. I realized it’s very difficult to address both sides completely.”

Barnett said, as mayor, he didn’t want any type of dangerous animal incidents in the city.

“But I recognize I can’t control that with an ordinance or a law,” he said.

He also said township officials realized they didn’t have the expertise to determine which breeds were dangerous or not, and they didn’t want to create breed-specific legislation.

“We wanted to put the responsibility more on the owner than on the dog,” Barnett said, noting the new insurance requirements.

“Waterford’s (pit bull) ban hasn’t stopped (dog attacks) in that community. There is nothing legislatively that can prevent this. You can add education and responsibility on owners.”

People must have their dogs under “reasonable control,” he said, with dogs on a leash held by a “reasonable person of suitable age and strength in relationship to the size and strength of the dog.”

Another section of the ordinance addresses dangerous dogs and defines them not by breed but what would happen if a person or animal is bitten.

In the three years Beauchamp has been on the job, he said the only incidents he could recall involve dog owners being reminded about having their dog on a leash.

— In Royal Oak, commissioners asked the city attorney this year to research whether breed-specific legislation is effective in decreasing attacks or maulings, and whether they should ask dog owners to provide proof of homeowners insurance. They expect to learn more at the March 18 commission meeting.

Mayor Jim Ellison, who said he isn’t in favor of breed-specific legislation, noted that anytime a mauling occurs, “it prompts a discussion,” he said.

“Pit bulls have become a hot topic. They have a reputation for being a very aggressive dog. In my opinion the dog is as good as its owner. I’ve seen some very well-behaved (pit bulls).”

Ellison and his wife own small dogs, he said, and his wife runs a dog daycare facility. “Pit bulls are wonderful dogs,” he said.

“People want to jump on the pit bull bandwagon but that’s what makes the news.”

Ellison said many people who own dogs don’t know who to handle them.

“They’ve got a loaded weapon,” he said. “If you can’t control a dog, you should have it.”

He said banning pit bulls isn’t the solution.

“I want to make sure if you have a dangerous dog, then the dog should be muzzled,” he said.

Dogs are part of everyone’s life, Ellison said.

“(Owners) have to learn how to control them,” he said.

Contact Carol Hopkins at 248-745-4645 or carol.hopkins@oakpress.com. Follow her on Twitter @OPCarolHopkins or on Facebook @OPcarolhopkins.